δ 1171. THE EUCHARISTIC THEORIES COMPARED. 669
Luther had given his assent, and clearly hints at Luther’s wrath, spite, jealousy, audacity, and other faults poorly concealed under the cover of bravery, constancy, etc.; yea, here and there he calls his arguments ‘ childish’ and ‘ fantastic,’ ete. Hence his new writings were by no means so ‘friendly’ as the title indicates. What is more important, we miss in them a sense for the deeper, truly religious motives of Luther, as much as we miss in Luther an appreciation of like motives in Zwingli. . . . He sees in Luther obstinate blindness, while Luther discovered in him a devilish spirit.’ }
§ 111. The Eucharistic Theories compared. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin.
We now present, for the sake of clearness, though at the risk of some repetition, the three Protestant theories on the real presence, with the chief arguments.
Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin agree, negatively, in opposition to the dogma of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity; positively, in these essential points: the divine institution and perpetuity of the Lord’s Supper, the spiritual presence of Christ, the commemorative character of the ordinance as the celebration of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, its importance as the highest act of worship and communion with Christ, and its special blessing to all who worthily partake of it.
They differ on three points, —the mode of Christ’s presence (whether corporal, or spiritual); the organ of receiving his body and blood (whether by the mouth, or by faith); and the extent of this reception (whether by all, or only by believers). The last point has no practical religious value, though it follows from the first, and stands or falls with it. The difference is logical rather than religious. The Lord’s Supper was never intended for unbelievers. Paul in speaking of “unworthily” receiving the sacrament (1 Cor. 11: 27) dloes not mean theoretical unbelief, but moral unworthiness, irreverence of spirit and manner.
I, THE LUTHERAN THEORY teaches a real and substantial
1 Martin Luther, 11. 96 sq.
670 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 τὸ 1580.
presence of the very body and blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross, in, with, and under (2n, sub, cwm) the elements of bread and wine, and the oral manducation of both substances by all communicants, unworthy and unbelieving, as well as worthy and believing, though with opposite effects. The simultaneous co-existence or conjunction of the two substances is not a local inclusion of one substance in the other (impanation), nor a mixture or fusing-together of the two substances into one; nor is it permanent, but ceases with the sacramental action. It is described as a sacramental, supernatural, incomprehensible union.1. The earthly elements remain unchanged and distinct in their substance and power, but they become the divinely appointed media for communicating the heavenly substance of the body and blood of Christ. They become so, not by priestly consecration, as in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but by the power and Word of God. The eating of the body is by the mouth, indeed, yet is not Capernaitic, and differs from the eating of ordinary food.? The
1 The Lutheran divines of the seventeenth century describe the real presence as sacramentalis, vera et realis, substantialis, mystica, supernaturalis, et incomprehensibilis, and distinguish it from the presentia gloriosa, hypostatica, spiritualis, figurativa, and from ἀπουσία (absence), évovoia (inexistence), συνουσία (co-existence in the sense of coalescence), and metovoa (transubstantiation).
2 The Formula Concordie (Epitome, Art. VII., Negativa 21) indignantly rejects the notion of dental mastication as a malicious slasder of the Sacramentarians. But Luther, in his instruction to Melanchthon, Dec. 17, 1534, gave it as his opinion, from which he would not yield, that ‘‘the body of Christ is distributed, eaten, and bitten with the teeth.”’ ‘‘Und ist Swima das unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brod der Leib Christi gessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brod wirket und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgetheilt, gessen, und mit den Zahnen zubissen [zerbissen] werde.’? De Wette, IV. 572. Comp. his letter to Jonas, Dec. 16, 1534, vol. IV. 569 sq. Dorner thinks that Luther speaks thus only per synecdochen; but this is excluded by the words, ‘‘ What the bread does and suffers, that the body of Christ does and suffers.’’ Melanchthon very properly declined to act on this instruction (see his letter to Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535, in the ‘‘ Corp. Reform.’’ II. 822), and began about that time to change his view on the real presence. He was confirmed in his change by the renewal of the eucharistic controversy, and his contact with Calvin.